Search form

The US Can't Afford to Continue the Death Penalty

I am not strongly against the death penalty on principle or on moral grounds- assuming, of course, that it could somehow be narrowly and efficiently restricted to a very few egregiously deserving and certainly guilty criminals.

I don't even find it particularly appalling (or cruel and unusual) punishment that a killer may have some few minutes of physical discomfort before expiring during a clumsily administered execution. My experience as a doctor teaches that dying is never that much fun and I don't see why a heinous criminal should expect a completely free terminal ride when this is not guaranteed to any of the rest of us.

But I do have a very strong objection to the death penalty based purely on practical economic grounds. Killing criminals, whether they deserve it or not, simply costs much more than our society can afford and provides far too little value in return.

Recently, I have appeared as an expert witness in two death penalty cases. Both trials dragged on for many months, produced thousands of pages of documentation, and engaged hundreds of witnesses- including a a platoon of experts arguing for each side.

There seemed to be a limitless budget with no attention to time or money. The stakes are so high in death penalty cases that every procedural nicety must be given its fullest possible due. Judges are extremely concerned about being reversed on a technicality by the appeals courts. This would be embarrassing to them and require a lengthy and expensive retrial. The safest way for a judge to achieve an appeal-proof verdict is always to allow the defense the greatest possible leeway. This encourages defense lawyers to pose every possible objection and to weave every conceivable mitigating theory (however outlandish) hoping that, with enough stuff out there, something may stick with the jury or later with the courts of appeal. The fact that defense lawyers are on the clock (getting hefty hourly fees, usually supported by tax dollars) also provides them with a strong financial incentive to drag things out as long as possible.

And what is society's reward for all this effort and expense? Precious little. In many states and in federal cases, the death penalty has become purely symbolic. Though offenders are sometimes sentenced to death, they usually wind up never getting executed; instead they live for decades in expensive death row cells. And in the states committed to actually following through on the death penalty, there is no evidence that executions have any more deterrent value than life without parole.

The price tag for the death penalty can reach tens of millions of dollars in any given case. Since budgets are always ultimately a zero sum game, wouldn't justice be better served and money better spent doing things that might actually reduce crime?

Increasingly, the death penalty has become an anomaly and an embarrassment. Already, 140 countries have eliminated it. The biggest sponsors are China, Iran, and us.

Only a few weak arguments can be raised to support the death penalty: that it provides society with an opportunity to inflict just retribution, has an impact on deterrence, promotes a sense of closure for survivors, and is a bargaining chip to encourage criminals to confess and cop a plea.

Even if you buy into some or all of this, the exorbitant financial cost of the death penalty makes it unsupportable as public policy. And you also have to factor in the haunting possibility that the state may sometimes kill an innocent person.

I don't like the death penalty, but not for monetary reasons. It's a fact it does not deter murder. States that have the death penalty have significantly higher murder rates, states without have lower rates according deathpenaltyinfo.org. Secondly, this is just not how civilized people live. Life without parole should be good enough for anyone. Just keep these people behind bars for the safety of law abiders. Family and friends of murdered people who want blood are out for revenge, not justice. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, If one innocent person is put to death, it's one too many. Just my opinion. Danny Gray

I understand both sides of the Death Penalty. In fact I was against it for most of my life, that is until someone murdered a close friend of mine in their house. Yes, Danny Grey, it's about revenge. So here is the murderer in jail watching TV, listening to his iPod, eating three squares a day while the victim's family is burring him. I see justice in that. {insert sarcasm here}

The legal system can make court proceedings long and arduous, especially when it comes to criminal law. In a game of freedom vs. morals nobody really wins.

That One Guy, I can understand your frustration. I don,t think convicted criminals should be allowed TV or any electronic devices. Let them read carefully monitored material if they want and get a little excersize and that's it. Just minimum for survival is all they deserve, especially for violent crime.I know prisons are not like this but I think they should be. I hate criminal activity, it can be frustrating and downright maddening, but suppose this; A close friend of yours is wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to die. The likelihood is low but it does happen. Life with no parole in a can be worse than the death penalty. Danny

By his last statement in this article, Dr. Frances states that the state "may" execute innocent people is naive. Most assuredly, they have. One such case I know of is in Texas, where Governor Perry disallowed expert testimony for a man convicted of killing his children by supposedly setting his house on fire. Experts all agreed it was not arson. You can watch the entire documentary by Googleing, Death By Fire.

And it is most definitely a moral issue. Ultimate punishment demands perfection...something we as humans cannot even come close to achieving. Executing innocent people as merely collateral damage is unacceptable.

I just looked at deathpenaltyinfo.org and noted that all the states in the "Bible Belt" have the death penalty. How retarded is that? I was born in and live in South Carolina. I wish there was something I could do to help change peoples mind about this.

I know at times it's complicated, but if it isn't because you know for certain someone committed the crime they ought to be taken out back and shot. Problem solved, bullets are cheap. Like whoever that was who shot up that movie theater, why is he still alive? There were numerous witnesses, he killed numerous people. He should have been dead the same day -none of this expensive trial malarkey for absolutely guilty people.